If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In some ways 7.3 is faster than 8i. You only have to bounce a database to find out that oracle 8i seems to take forever to shutdown compared to 7.3.4. Performance is lost between versions, probably due to additional logic being coded in the Kernal.

Originally posted by kgb So, I do not hear any other wisdom thoughts form our moderatos ???
Nothing to say to my address any more or nothing to say at all ?

Well, dear senior member, you should be more patient, don't loose your temper after waiting for an answer for a little more than an hour. Or do you think that anybody have enough time to ansver questions every minute? We all have our jobs that we are paid for, we are participating in this forums in our own free time.

You should also explain what was the sollution for that bug, that turns out not to be bug at all! And you should also explain that this "bug" manifested itself only for some very specific type of queries - in most cases 9i is faster than 8i, that is a prooven fact.

So about your "bug". It is not a bug realy, it is only a result of changed default setting of one of the hidden init parameters (_UNNEST_SUBQUERY). It defaults to TRUE in 9i, but it was FALSE in 8i. Set this parameter to TRUE in 9i and you'll see exactly the same execution plan as in 8i.

That means the same as buying a care without one wheel !!!

Strange comparison. This three wheel 9i car was almost twice as fast as the fastest 8i four wheel car according to tpmC benchmarks (And please don't give me lecture about how meaningless those benchmarks are - I know that. And despite that, my remark has much more relevance than yours.)

Thanks for attention.

You are welcome.

Jurij ModicASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
24 hours in a day .... 24 beer in a case .... coincidence?

It's only my opinion but I've found Oracle9i to be much faster, more stable and easier to manage than Oracle8i.

As Julian said earlier, I think people should take some time to investigate the product before making knee-jerk claims about Oracle9i.

Baseline the performance on your current system. Once you've got some real data upgrade and get your new baseline. Only then can you have a true measure of performance between the systems. When I've done this Oracle9i has beaten Oracle8i and Oracle7, but as I said, it's just my experience.

Remember, to get the most out of any engine you should follow the best practises associated with that version. There's no point in using Oracle9i that way you used Oracle6.

"We have about 300 UNIX servers on our site, and that represents just over 200 terabytes of storage connected to all the servers. The 200 terabytes break down into Oracle servers that range in size from 1 terabyte to 6 terabytes of raw data. Our customer with 6 terabytes of raw data has about 24 terabytes of storage on his Compaq Alpha servers."

Also, although we're still using 8i I have spoken to a few DBAs who are "happily" managing production 9i dbs for several months now. If you want to upgrade, upgrade to 9i.